Lets put it this way, as I have done before.
So that leaves: England who have the mental strength needed to beat Australia, but not the personnel fit at the moment and West Indies who've come on stronger and quicker than even I imagined. Australia who are the one to beat again - someone has to beat them if they want to win. WI just did it, England did it a year or so ago, the rest haven't beaten a really strong Australian side when it counts for something recently.
.

WI is an example of how I backed a rubbish team to come good and they are. (Nothing to do with being an England fan before anyone else says owt about me with backing a *fit* England)

Simon Jones would certainly be a big improvement over Mahmood, I don't care what Simon Jones' record is like, he competed alright with Australia when he was fit against them - the best ODI batting lineup he'll face. England seem to have had at least two players out over the last year in ODIs, Flintoff was obviously completely out of touch when he came back and didn't have his bowling as you said, it was like of having some mickey mouse County Championship batsman there in the CT. England also had Tresco missing, Giles missing.

Whilst some of them may not be huge performers it's not one huge performance that generally wins you games in ODI cricket, it's having guys who can do a decent job from 1 to 11, if you have 10 overs that consistently go for another 15-20 runs than other teams and batting that contributes 15-20 runs less then you're in big trouble because of the nature of ODI games. I've no idea what'll happen with the wicket-keeping for England so that's one weakness that might remain.

My issue is you're only giving reasons as to why England (with those players back in) should become a competitive ODI team. Almost everyone acknowledges that with the personnel they have, some smarter selection policies and a different attitude should result in England returning to the pack and becoming a competitive ODI team, whilst not being great. People know they should be competitive.

What you're saying however is that with Trescothick, Giles and a Simon Jones (who may not even be able to do half as what he could before) returning to the team by the WC, they're going to suddenly be in the top 3 favourites for the World Cup. Its ludicrous. There's still plenty of issues to solve, like Harmison being crud, players like Yardy and Dalrymple not being sure of their role, where to bat your two best players (KP and Freddy) etc. You don't just solve that by adding in a couple of players who aren't spectacular anyway and then suddenly 5 months later you're a top 3 team.

Err I've just given a load of reasons why it's not ludicrous. Here are some more, look at the CT group stages - all teams on 1 win 2 losses or 2 wins 1 loss. WI get completely trounced against SL then WI wins their first two group games and SL are the first team out. Teams go from being rubbish to very good and vice versa in no time once a few individuals come through or get injured, or without even that happening. The anyone but Australia lot are all close together to start with.

England beat a WI team without their best bowler, and if you reckon they brought their A game to that match well youi're kidding yourself.

I guess you can say that about every England ODI though

Look, you don't have to explain the 'pack' theory to me. Its obvious that other than Australia the other major int'l nations are packed together and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Generally however, England are at the bottom of the pack, and at the least, those inclusions and changes you mentioned will only bring them into the pack and competitive again. Won't make them a force in ODIs, that's for sure.

England beat a WI team without their best bowler, and if you reckon they brought their A game to that match well youi're kidding yourself.

I guess you can say that about every England ODI though

Look, you don't have to explain the 'pack' theory to me. Its obvious that other than Australia the other major int'l nations are packed together and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Generally however, England are at the bottom of the pack, and at the least, those inclusions and changes you mentioned will only bring them into the pack and competitive again. Won't make them a force in ODIs, that's for sure.

Explain then how a full strength England side matched Australia before the Ashes and before KP was available made the final of the CT (after knocking Australia out)?

A full strength England would easily be elevated above the likes of India, Pakistan (now they've players banned), NZ and Sri Lanka in a World Cup.

Explain then how a full strength England side matched Australia before the Ashes and before KP was available made the final of the CT (after knocking Australia out)?

A full strength England would easily be elevated above the likes of India, Pakistan (now they've players banned), NZ and Sri Lanka in a World Cup.

They won two matches, you realise? Sure, they played well and everything, but winning 2 games with a tie and three losses doesn't make up for getting hammered by every other nation in the world the rest of the time. Sri Lanka won two matches against Australia last time they played them at home in a five match series. New Zealand tied an ODI series a couple of years back and lost one very narrowly last summer, and South Africa beat Australia 3-2 in an ODI series just this year.

It happens, simple as that. If anything, England have declined as an ODI side since then, while most of the other top sides including Australia have made significant improvements in the leadup to the WC. Certainly there's no way England are in the same league as New Zealand atm, who have a very solid and consistent ODI lineup, or Sri Lanka. India and Pakistan minus Shoaib and Asif are closer calls, but they're still more consistent and have fewer players who simply aren't up to international standard.

They won two matches, you realise? Sure, they played well and everything, but winning 2 games with a tie and three losses doesn't make up for getting hammered by every other nation in the world the rest of the time. Sri Lanka won two matches against Australia last time they played them at home in a five match series. New Zealand tied an ODI series a couple of years back and lost one very narrowly last summer, and South Africa beat Australia 3-2 in an ODI series just this year.

It happens, simple as that. If anything, England have declined as an ODI side since then, while most of the other top sides including Australia have made significant improvements in the leadup to the WC. Certainly there's no way England are in the same league as New Zealand atm, who have a very solid and consistent ODI lineup, or Sri Lanka. India and Pakistan minus Shoaib and Asif are closer calls, but they're still more consistent and have fewer players who simply aren't up to international standard.

England took something off Australia in a final, a full strength Australia at that. They are the only team other than possibly SL in the past 6 years to do that, SL won a game in a best of three against a slightly weakened side but got got completely crushed in the next two games so lost in the end. NZ have only beaten weakened Australia sides in fairly meaningless games (and they're bound to win the odd one because they play each other so much), once Australia wants to win something badly enough NZ are brushed aside like most other sides, especially now they're a real force again. Only England and WI have displayed the mental strength (and talent) to beat them when it counts for something, at high strength.

New Zealand have about as much chance of beating Australia in the World Cup as I have of winning a Nobel peace prize.

England's ODI decline is down to injury and apathy, they will go for it in a World Cup so there's half of their problem gone, whether they'll have a full strength side is another matter.

Injury and apathy certainly have something to do with it, but so does the fact that they carry a hell of a lot of dead weight in their team. They have no established specialist bowlers (ie: not Flintoff) in the ODI side who are any good, though Anderson has potential, and they have two top class batsmen in Pietersen and Flintoff and a couple of decent ones for support and nothing else. Players like Read/Geraint, Harmison, Vaughan etc are just terrible ODI players and no side that carries players like that will be consistently good, and the likes of Yardy and Dalrymple are hardly the solution.

It's the same sort of problem the Windies have actually with the likes of Wavell Hinds, Dwayne Smith etc weighing down their batting lineup, but at least they have enough high quality players to make up for it. England don't, simply put, and until they can send down 40 odd quality overs and show up with 4 or 5 quality ODI batsmen they won't get anywhere.